The Netherlands: "Big Brother" Wire Tapping: Government Wire Tapping Powers 'rejected' by Dutch in Referendum

The Netherlands Rejects "Big Brother" wanting to watch them

The Netherlands put to a referendum new legislation, officially the Intelligence and Security Law.

The bill gave new powers to the Netherlands' intelligence services.

They would be able to install wire taps on whole areas, rather than just individuals, store information for up to three years and share this data with other spy agencies.

An independent panel would have to approve these wire taps before they could go ahead.

Both the lower and upper chambers of the Netherlands parliament passed the law last year,

Voters, however, in the Netherlands appear to have narrowly rejected the new online data collection powers for intelligence agencies in the referendum which was held in on March 21.

With about 90% of votes counted, 48.8% have rejected the powers, with 47.3% in favour.

An exit poll by the national broadcaster had earlier suggested a victory for "yes".

Supporters say the powers could help fight terrorism, while opponents say the law could be invasion of privacy.

Prime Minister Mark Rutte has promised to take the Referendum vote seriously --And he better do so, even though the result is non-binding, this no-vote will  require a re-debate in parliament. 

This is a controversial issue, which would have  allowed "Big Brother" to put their nose even deeper into Dutch citizens personal privacy, under the nebulous pretext of national security. As if there are not enough government agencies already infringing on citizens privacy.

EU-Digest

The Netherlands -Dutch referendum on Ukraine is being ignored by "waffeling" PM Rutte

Dutch PM Rutte and Perosenko of Ukraine

The EUobserver reports:"some may remember, the Netherlands had their own mini-Brexit in April, when a majority of Dutch voted against the EU-Ukraine Treaty, in a non-binding referendum, triggered by campaigners eager to give the establishment a good drubbing.

Since then, Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, has scrambled to find a way to avoid vetoing ratifying the treaty.

Rutte's plan is to secure a 'legally binding declaration' to the Treaty at the EU Summit in December, which should stress that it doesn't lead to EU membership for Ukraine, or the Netherlands providing any extra funds to the country, beyond those already committed, or oblige Dutch military cooperation with Ukraine.

Such declarations are a well-established practice at EU level and have been applied to deal with the Irish no-vote against the Lisbon Treaty, or more recently, Wallonia's opposition to the EU-Canada trade deal.

How do politicians vote, when the people already voted?

There always are differences as to how “binding” such declarations are, sometimes under national law, sometimes at the EU level, sometimes only according to “international law”, giving lawyers a field day, helpfully confusing any critics.

The EU 27 seem happy to give Rutte whatever declaration he needs and Ukraine isn't needed to sign anything.

But Rutte's particular problem is that the coalition of the centre-right VVD with the centre-left PvdA doesn't hold a majority in the Dutch Senate, needed to pass the EU-Ukraine Treaty.

Only the centrist, EU-federalist, D66 party has suggested it will support Rutte's solution, while the Christian-democratic CDA hasn’t committed to supporting it just yet".

Almere-Digest

Ukraine-Netherlands:Time running out on Ukraine referendum - by Janene Pieters

The Dutch government is running out of time for finding a solution on what to do about ratifying the associatioin agreement between the European Union and Ukraine.

The deadline is November 1st. And it doesn't seem likely that a decision will be made on Friday, NU.nl reports.

"Today and in the coming days we are considerably going to talk about it", Minsiter Bert Koenders said, according to NU. "We still have a few days. We'll try to find a solution to the last moment."

Prime Minister Mark Rutte failed to find support among the opposition parties for a compromise. The compromise entails still ratifying the treaty, but also addressing the concerns of the voter majority that voted against the treaty in the Ukraine referendum in April.

The government wants a binding amendment added to the treaty which explicitly states that the treaty is not a prelude to EU membership for the Ukraine, that the Netherlands has the right to refrain from military cooperation and that extra money will not be transferred to the east European country. 

Note Almere Digest: The military component of this treaty is what most people who voted against it in the referendum are bothered by. The reason is simple: The majority of Dutch citizens don't want to continue to be part of US military adventures like the one the Netherlands is presently involved in the Middle East. A cruel and never ending war in Syria or Iraq, which is not only a total failure, but also costing the Dutch taxpayers millions of Euros, and the result of a massive flow of millions of refugees into  the EU.  

Read more: Time running out on Ukraine referendum | NL Times

Europe's Future Is Federal - by Jean Tirole

Numerous Europeans view Europe as a one-way street: they appreciate its advantages but are little inclined to accept common rules. An increasing number throughout the Union are handing their vote to populist parties – Front National, Syriza, Podemos – that surf on this Eurosceptic wave and rise up against “foreign”- imported constraints.

Embroiled with the Greek crisis, European policymakers will soon have to step back and reflect on the broader issue of the Eurozone’s future. Before envisaging an exit or, on the contrary, more sustained integration, it’s right to reflect upon the consequences of each option.

Oversimplifying, there are three strategies for the Eurozone: a minimalist approach that would see a return to national currencies, while keeping Europe perhaps as a free trade area and retaining a few institutions that have made a real difference such as common competition laws; the current approach based on the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 and its fiscal compact update in 2012; and, finally, the more ambitious version of federalism. My own clear preference is for the federalist version but I’m not at all convinced that Europeans are ready to make it work successfully.

Note EU-Digest:  Federalism is probably the only way to go if Europe does not want to become subservient to the presently ruling superpowers, China, the US, and even Russia. Populism and nationalism is not the way to go, as it has always turned sour in Europe's history. True federalism would certainly require finding another historic shining political star like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who has the ability to get the EU reorganized, and all the EU member states moving in the same direction. Let's hope we get blessed soon in finding that "needle in the political haystack" to rescue the EU out of the iron grip of the Wall Steet dominated financial community.

Read more: Europe's Future Is Federal » Social Europe

Netherlands: Municipal elections - Government coalition parties get thrashed - Wilders PVV also among losers

The Dutch government coalition parties all suffered major losses in Wednesdays municipal elections.

With 77% of the votes counted the biggest loser was the government coalition party PVDA ( Labour party) which lost more than 243 council seats around the country ( from 863 to 620 seats) . The other government coalition party VVD (Conservative Party) lost 104 council seats country-wide dropping from 1002 to 898 seats

Biggest winners were the Socialist party  (SP) who gained 159 seats, going from 186 to 345 seats and the D66 ( Democratic party) which gained more than 200 seats - going from  414 to 614 seats.

Wilders right-wing Eurosceptic anti-Muslim party dropped  from a total of 17 to 16 seats. 

EU-Digest